Despite
cynicism, lessons learned from the past and even current violations
of Minsk II already, there may be a silver lining or perhaps an
opportunity which should not be wasted.
In most instances in the past, Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s play has been dominant in terms of outwitting the opposition.
This time he struck an agreement on his terms when holding the better
hand, having recently grabbed more land.
Still there will be a brief
lull in the fighting.
Sporadic and systematic breaches by the
Russians will never abate. Nevertheless, because the fighting will
diminish, there will be a brief respite for all sides, including the
West, to take inventory and devise strategy. Taking inventory must
include a recognition that strategy thus far has done little to abate
the aggression.
A
glaring omission in the agreement is no specific mention of imprisoned Ukrainian army officer Nadiya
Savchenko in paragraphs 5 or 6 which speaks to amnesty for
individuals involved in activities in Donetsk and Luhansk as well as
and an exchange of hostages within five days from the implementation
of the ceasefire. The Savchenko case should serve as an early
indicator of Russian compliance.
The
White House greeted the agreement with a perfunctory welcome calling
it “a potentially significant step toward a peaceful resolution of
the conflict and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty consistent
with the Minsk agreements from last September.” Yet it added its
concern about the escalation of fighting on the date of the Agreement
as being inconsistent with the spirit of the accord.
U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry likewise welcomed the news. However, Kerry felt compelled to gratuitously add: “As we have long said,
the United States is prepared to consider rolling back sanctions on
Russia when the Minsk agreements of September 2014, and now this
agreement, are fully implemented.”
What
about the hybrid war which continues, Russian enclaves within
Ukrainian territory? What about Crimea annexed to the Russian
Federation? The Secretary misspoke. What the secretary should have
said regarding sanctions was that should Russia fail to abide by the
ceasefire yet again, additional sanctions would be imposed. That
would make the U.S. position meaningful.
Immediately,
while the ceasefire is still largely in place, the United States
should announce what it is prepared to do in the event of yet another
Russian violation.
Certainly, among the most significant measures
would be to work with our European partners to lock out Russia from
the Belgium based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunications system known as SWIFt. A lock out would be
crippling to the Russian economy. A warning about a possible lock
would be a serious and tangible admonishment to Russian banks and the
oligarchs who rely upon them for the movement of their wealth, among
them Vladimir Putin, the oligarch in chief.
Additional
less meaningful sanctions should be announced as well which would
include barring Russian companies currently actively doing business
in the United States such as Lukoil and a plethora of Russian vodka
manufacturing companies. These sanctions would gravely affect Russian
industry, Russian state coffers and benefit U.S. energy producers,
manufacturers and farmers.
Finally,
the president himself should announce that he and our NATO allies
have thought long and hard about equipping Ukrainians with lethal
arms, have been reluctant to do so given the glimmer of hope that all
conflicts can be resolved diplomatically in good faith, but that a
Russian breach will convince them irrevocably that Russia is not
acting in good faith.
The president should make it very clear to
Putin that he sees the current ceasefire as not still another attempt
to bring peace to Ukraine, but as the final test for Russia who has
breached systematically so many international treaties and agreements
to date. If Russia fails to abide by the ceasefire the United States
and its NATO allies will begin arming Ukraine since, having exhausted
diplomatic channels, helping to stop Russia on the Ukrainian
battlefield will be perceived as the only way to stop the Russian
scourge from spreading, guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and
territorial inviolability and upholding the principles of
international law. U.S. involvement in this regard may be only the
beginning until such time as all borders are restored to their
pre-February 2014 status.
This
type of announcement would make the cease-fire agreement meaningful.
Otherwise, Minsk 2 will simply become another international agreement
that Russia has signed and violated. More importantly strategically,
it could be the West’s last chance to secure peace in Eastern Europe
and, perhaps, prevent aggression from spreading beyond. Hope springs
eternal. But politically even hope tinged with naivete has
limitations.
